There's a new champ in the fitness ring with a one-two punch that would send Sugar Ray Robinson spinning. It's an exercise combo that helps you burn fat and lower blood sugar better than either exercise alone.The dynamic duo? Aerobics and weight training. Do two of our favorite things: speed walking and a little resistance work. Even if you do the absolute minimum -- 5 days of walking and 2 days of strength training -- for just 20 to 30 minutes a day, you'll get more out of it than if you do just one. Researchers observed that people with diabetes who did the combo trimmed their waists, lowered their blood sugar, cut back on their meds, and (nifty bonus) lost 4 pounds of pure fat. The beauty of combining both types of workouts is that it doesn't have to take more time. The mix seems to maximize the benefits of whatever you do. Even though the combo plan was tested on people with diabetes, it will work for anyone, whether you need to exercise to lower your blood sugar or just want to get healthier, have more energy, and reduce your risk of cancer and heart disease. Who wouldn't want that?If you're already walking 30 minutes a day, don't cut back. Just substitute weight-training on two of those days or -- even better -- tack on 20 minutes of strength work to two speed walks. You'll get an even bigger bang on your exercise bottom line.

Power up for your next workout by eating one of these snack recipes from EatingWell about 30 minutes before you exercise:

It can be hard to find time for physical activity. That’s why a lot of people are talking about intervals – specifically, High intensity interval training (HIIT). Research shows that HIIT, if done correctly, can pack a lot of cardiovascular benefits into a workout as short as 15 minutes. But is this training method for you?HIIT is a punishing regime in which you push yourself to 100% of your physical capacity for 30 seconds – say, sprinting around a track at top speed. This is followed by 30 to 60 seconds of active rest – walking, for example, while recovering your breath. You repeat these cycles 10 to 20 times. Sounds exhausting? It is. The good news is, new research is suggesting that you actually don’t need to exercise at 100%. In Modified HIIT, you work at 90% of your maximum but make the intervals longer – 60 seconds instead of 30. (Don’t worry, I’ll explain how to figure out what 90% means.) So what is the skinny on Modified HIIT?You train for a total of 20-30 minutes per session. Intervals are 60 seconds long and rotate between high intensity and active rest.High intensity here means about 90% of your maximum heart rate. What is your maximum heart rate? Subtract your age from 220. Then multiply this number by 0.9 to calculate 90%. For example, Mark is a 54-year-old man. His 90% mark would be a heart rate around 150 beats per minute. ((220-54) x 0.9 = 150)Thoughtful tips for all interval training:HIIT, either full or modified, is not for everyone. For some, it’s a good once-a-week challenge among other activities.You’ll be tempted to cheat – stretching out early intervals when you feel fresh, and cutting short the later ones when you’re exhausted. Don’t – you’ll lose the benefits of the exercise. A personal trainer can help you find the right intensity and hold you to strict times. A stopwatch or a workout partner – or both – can also help you stick to your intervals.Monitor your heart rate with a heart rate monitor or listen to your body. If you find that you can’t complete a full minute you are likely pushing too hard. The high intensity intervals will get more difficult with time but should never be impossible. During active rest intervals, your heart rate should come down after 30 seconds. If it does not, you are likely working too hard and need to scale back.Running, swimming and cycling are excellent activities to try HIIT. So if you feel like trying either full or modified HIIT, pick an activity and go – especially if you are looking for a little extra pump in your routine.Before starting any physical activity routine, please check with your healthcare provider.

Fructose had no significant effect on body weight in an analysis of 31 calorie-controlled trials. Excess calories coming from any source of carbohydrates contributed to weight gain regardless of type.

Fructose demonstrated no adverse effect on blood pressure when compared to other carbohydrate sources in an analysis of 15 trials, contrary to previously raised concerns.

Some fructose, up to and around 10 grams per meal, could improve glycemic control (blood sugar control), according to analysis of six trials.

The authors caution that fructose at high doses such as found in many sugar-sweetened sodas (often 25 grams or higher) can increase body weight. However, the weight gain would be attributed to the extra calories consumed and not because of any unique property of fructose.John L. Sievenpiper, M.D., Ph.D., Russel J. de Souza, ScD, RD, and David Jenkins, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., from St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, along with their research team published their findings in the February issues of Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Journal of Nutrition, and Hypertension. Funding for their research came primarily from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.Fructose is often singled out in the popular press because of the prominence of high-fructose corn syrup, which is about 45 percent glucose and 55 percent fructose, in a variety of processed foods. Notably, in these reviews, the researchers concentrated on fructose only and excluded studies on high-fructose corn syrup.The research is presented in the face of controversy because of a previously published commentary in Nature authored by Robert Lustig, M.D., and colleagues, in which they described the sugar as “toxic.” In response to Lustig’s paper, Sievenpiper, de Souza, and Jenkins wrote to the publicationsaying:Robert Lustig and colleagues argue that sugar is “toxic,” focusing on the “deadly effect” of the fructose moiety of sucrose. But they are directing attention away from the problem of general overconsumption.Guidelines on healthy eating encourage fruit consumption, and fruit and fruit products are the third-largest source of fructose in the US diet.Our meta-analyses of controlled feeding trials indicate a net metabolic benefit, with no harmful effects, from fructose at a level of intake obtainable from fruit.Their criticism was published as “Correspondence” in the 23 February issue of Nature accompanied by comments of other scientists. The other comments called the “opinion paper” of Lustig and colleagues “extreme,” “ludicrous,” and “sensationalism.” They also made the point that the paper contained oversimplifications that sought to demonize sugar rather than address the complex factors (such as overeating and sedentary lifestyle) associated with obesity in a way that would serve public health.In their comment, clinical nutritionists Christiani Jeyakumar Henry, Ph.D., and Viren Ranawana, Ph.D., of the Singapore Institute, wrote that “contribution of sugar towards chronic diseases is more relevant to developed countries than the developing world,” and that it’s more likely that overconsumption of high-glycemic carbohydrates are what mainly contribute to obesity and diabetes.Fructose, unlike other sugars, is low glycemic because it's metabolized differently. Fructose, metabolized differently than glucose and other sugars, doesn’t stimulate insulin and is characteristically low glycemic. For these reasons, it’s often used in low-glycemic food applications (and mainly in amounts similar to what’s in fruit). It’s also higher in stability and perceived sweetness compared to other sugars, which leads to less use of sugar overall.ReferencesSievenpiper JL, de Souza RJ, Mirrahimi A et al. Effect of Fructose on Body Weight in Controlled Feeding Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:291-304.Sievenpiper JL, Chiavaroli L, de Souza RJ et al. ‘Catalytic’ doses of fructose may benefit glycaemic control without harming cardiometabolic risk factors: a small meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials. Br J Nutr 2012;1-6. doi: 10.1017/S000711451200013XHa V, Sievenpiper JL, de Souza RJ et al. Effect of Fructose on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials. Hypertension 2012. doi: 10.1161/​HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.182311 Lustig RH, Schmidt LA, Brindis CD. “Public health: The toxic truth about sugar.” Nature 482, 27-29 (02 February 2012). doi: 10.1038/482027aSievenpiper JL, de Souza RJ, Jenkins DJA. “Sugar: fruit fructose is still healthy.” Correspondence. Nature 482, 470 (23 February 2012) doi: 10.1038/482470eHenry CJ, Ranawana V. “Sugar: a problem of developed countries.” Correspondence. Nature 482 (23 February 2012) doi: 10.1038/482471a